Saskatchewan recognized ASL and Indigenous sign languages as official languages — and resources are needed for services

ASL translation of this story by Alanda McLeod, sign support professional with Saskatchewan Deaf & Hard Of Hearing Services.

Saskatchewan recently became one of four Canadian provinces that recognize sign languages as official languages with the passing of the Accessible Saskatchewan Act or Bill 103 in December.

The bill states, “Sign languages are recognized as the primary languages for communication by deaf persons in Saskatchewan,” including American Sign Language (ASL) and Indigenous sign languages.

Nationally, the Accessible Canada Act was passed in 2019 also recognizing ASL, Langue des signes du Québec and Indigenous sign languages in Canada.

All “public sector bodies” must comply with Saskatchewan’s new act and will be required to “develop and publicly post their own accessibility plans by December 3, 2025.”

Regulations accompanying the act define these bodies as including school divisions within The Education Act, 1995, and post-secondary education institutions defined under section 3 of The Post-secondary Education and Skills Training Regulations, 2022 (other than Lakeland College).

As a researcher who has examined how empowering community and autonomy intersects with modes of educational instruction, I have been following the passing of Bill 103.

While it is a positive step forward in response to systemic failings in addressing the needs of deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) learners, adherence to and respect for Bill 103 can only happen with ongoing political and financial support from the provincial government.

Access to services, opportunities

Exacerbated by the closure of the R.J. Williams School for the Deaf in 1991 in Saskatchewan, the DHH community has suffered from a lack of services, resources, ASL interpreters and instruction in ASL. A historic polarization between adherents of sign language and of auditory-verbal therapy (AVT) has hindered provision of educational services for DHH children.

AVT can be traced back to the work of Alexander Graham Bell who felt that the ability to speak was paramount for becoming a fully integrated and contributing member to society. He advanced the view that deafness was a curse and harmful to society.

Under the belief that sign language would hinder oral development, many DHH individuals were forbidden to learn sign language — an attitude which still lingers among some today.

Human Rights Commission findings

Even before children begin school, language deprivation often begins at home. Research finds that 90 to 95 per cent of DHH children are from hearing families who might have little if any knowledge of how to communicate with a deaf child.

In a 2016 report, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC) documented that some health professionals were telling parents to avoid sign language in favour of cochlear implants, lip reading and AVT to achieve spoken competence.

Adherents of sign languages argue in favour of giving children sign language instruction as early as possible. Many DHH children who lack full access to language services become linguistically deprived.

The lack of language during critical periods of development, some argue, can lead to language deprivation syndrome, isolation and mental health issues. There can also be long-ranging detrimental effects on academic achievement and future employment.

Some parents have been told to avoid sign language.
(Shutterstock)

Parents need full range of options

Regardless of good intentions on either side of the AVT versus ASL argument, the real need is to ensure DHH children can reach their developmental milestones.

In an interview, Robyn Holmes, president of the Saskatchewan Deaf Association, who is also an early childhood and family services specialist for Saskatchewan Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services, said that rather than an either-AVT-or-ASL approach, parents should have a full range of options and that “sign language as the ‘last’ option is not acceptable.”

The SHRC also notes parents of DHH children should be provided with a full list of options.

Compounded systemic failings

In 2016, a case documented by the office of Saskatchewan’s Advocate for Children and Youth demonstrated how systemic failings in educational services are compounded for DHH Indigenous children and youth whose communities are drastically under-resourced.

A 2016 report, “The Silent World of Jordan,” recounts a case in which a 16-year-old Indigenous youth died while incarcerated at the Prince Albert Youth Residence in Saskatchewan in 2013. The youth had significant hearing loss and limited ability to sign or communicate through speech.

The report details cascading failures at multiple levels including the lack of access to language, barriers to health services and other systemic, procedural and policy issues. Among the recommendations is the acknowledgement of the duty to accommodate.

The belief that sign language hinders oral development has contributed to hindering the provision of educational services for DHH children.
(Shutterstock)

Resources for Deaf learners

It remains to be seen how K-12 school divisions will respond to making public plans to accommodate deaf students in light of the Accessibility Act.

Some resources for DHH learners in Saskatchewan are appearing. For example:

Video from the CCCC preschool about its program.

Accessibility plans needed

Ideally, Bill 103 compels all public schools, colleges and universities to recognize ASL and Indigenous sign languages. Over the next two years, they must develop an accessibility plan that identifies, removes and prevents barriers.

Public sector bodies must consult with persons with disabilities to ensure inclusion, adaptability, diversity, collaboration, self-determination and universal design.

The bill currently offers no guidelines for the kinds of services or level of accommodations that need to go into the accessibility plans.

However, guidelines are expected to be released early in 2024, and the Saskatchewan government has committed to release its accessibility plan on Dec. 3, 2024.

Classroom considerations, technologies

In classrooms, learners should have interpreters if the teacher lacks the ability to sign. Therefore, all teachers should have access to training in how to communicate with DHH students through both the ASL alphabet and basic conversational and classroom-related signs.

In my own efforts to learn ASL, I have been using various mobile apps such as Fingerspelling along with various other apps such as ASL dictionaries and more conversational-language learning apps. The Manitoba School for the Deaf lists different apps for various levels. I have used FaceTime and the Video Relay Services (VRS) to communicate with deaf friends, colleagues and fellow learners.

Money, time and effort needed

Teacher training, as well as reviewing, selecting and preparing both digital and non-digital resources for classrooms and for school-DHH community communication will take money, time and effort.

Educational institutions will require support and resources to ensure our publicly funded educational institutions can provide the appropriate services and learning technologies. Läs mer…

Nasa to overhaul mission returning samples from Mars – here’s why it must and will go ahead

Nasa recently announced that it is seeking new ways to complete the return to Earth of rock cores drilled by the Perseverance Rover in the Jezero Crater on Mars. This has led to some anxiety among space scientists, who view the Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission as a cornerstone of plans to explore the Solar System.

But when you consider what’s at stake, scientifically and politically, it seems highly likely that Nasa will push ahead with the mission to make it a success.

One key conclusion of the Nasa review is that MSR was established with unrealistic budget and schedules. Now it expects a cost of US$8-11 billion (£6.5-8.9 billion), having originally estimated $5.3 billion. That’s not including the investment that the European Space Agency (Esa) is making, which is probably of the order of €2 billion (£1.7 billion).

There are also concerns that the timeline for return of the drill cores to Earth may slip in to the 2040s, and therefore start holding up the even more ambitious vision for human missions to Mars.

Despite these obstacles, Nasa remains committed to MSR as one of its highest science priorities. In fact, it remains the agency’s highest priority of the decade for planetary science.

Nasa puts great emphasis on delivering what its ten-year surveys of the community propose – and it would be loath to abandon the recommendations. Esa is also unlikely to want to lose the scientific investment it has already made in MSR.

Huge scientific importance

So why does the space science community regard MSR as so important? Partly because the technologies are a stepping stone to future human exploration. For instance, the mission needs an ascent vehicle to launch the samples into orbit for capture by another spacecraft.

Cylinder of rock the size inside the drill of Perseverance rover.
Nasa

Perseverance is already doing the first key stage of this mission – drilling in Jezero Crater. This is stage one of four. The next two stages will be to gather at least some of the drilled samples and launch them on a Mars ascent vehicle into orbit for capture by Esa’s Return Orbiter. That capture in Mars orbit of a football-sized return capsule is one of the key technical challenges of MSR. Esa is taking a major part in this and leads the return orbiter development.

The final stage, assuming successful landing at the Utah Test and Training Range, is a painstaking programme of organic, geochemical and mineralogical analyses will take place under stringent conditions of containment. This stage will deploy the very best equipment that we scientists have in laboratories across the world.

But these challenging steps come at a cost, which Nasa is now proposing to reduce. For example, it may reduce the mass of an ascent vehicle. And it has already dropped a planned UK-built Fetch rover to gather up drilled samples. Even the option of using helicopters as demonstrated by Ingenuity on Mars2020 is at risk – it may be Perseverance itself that delivers the drill tubes to an ascent rocket.

But these financial savings come with a scientific cost. Fewer of the currently envisaged 30 drill cores (each of the rock cores inside the 15cm tubes are about 6cm long) would be returned in that scenario to keep the ascent vehicle light.

The actual samples from an ancient delta, and a thick lava flow that has preserved traces of alteration by hot water, being drilled in Jezero Crater have been stored on board or dropped at a depot. These precious cores represent the results of past Mars orbiter and lander missions, telling us where to land and making accurate predictions of what we would find.

Ultimately, the samples waiting for return to Earth offer our best chance in the near future of identifying traces of ancient life beyond our own planet. It’s hard to imagine a more pressing task for space science.

If Perseverance continues to work successfully – and its 12-year-old sibling rover, Curiosity, that I work on suggests it will – then we have the enticing prospect of sampling the rim of Jezero Crater. This is a window into a new type of environment in Mars exploration: the excavated deep crust where ancient microbial life may have been shielded from the harsh surface radiation.

Chinese rivalry

There is another, less scientifically driven, reason that Nasa and Esa will be keen to maintain their records of success in Mars exploration.

The Apollo programme was given impetus by cold war rivalry with the Soviet Union. Tragically, new collaboration with the Russian space agency Roscomos, and the full potential for space exploration that could be realised in a more peaceful geopolitical environment, is not currently possible.

Roscosmos could no longer mount a credible MSR mission on its own. The Esa rover Rosalind Franklin was scheduled to be launched on a Soyuz rocket in 2023, but after the Ukraine invasion that mission was quickly rethought.

China now has credible plans for a Mars Sample Return mission called Tianwen-3. The Chinese Space Agency wants to launch in 2028, with separate lander and ascent vehicle launches. If that challenging timeline can really be achieved, then samples could be returned to Earth by 2031.

In 2020, I argued that an era of new Chinese collaboration with the west could be possible. But four years on, I wonder if the history of rivalry may be repeating itself.

MSR is needed to address some of our most important questions about Mars and habitable environments beyond Earth. But it also looks set to become another symbol of rivalry in space. That said, it may be an important reason why it will indeed be a success. Läs mer…

Migraine sufferers in England may soon be able to access preventative drug – here’s how atogepant works

A drug that can help prevent migraines could soon be available on the NHS. Atogepant (brand name: Aquipta) was recently recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) to prevent episodic and chronic migraine attacks. The drug would be recommended to people who have at least four migraine days a month or where at least three previous preventative treatments have failed.

Migraine is a complex neurological condition that affects about 10 million people in the UK. It’s characterised by recurrent, severe headaches that can be made worse by physical activity and are often debilitating. They’re accompanied by other neurological symptoms such as aura (usually vision disturbances, such as flashes or light or blind spots), sensitivity to light or sound, nausea and vomiting.

About 1% of the population suffer from chronic migraine attacks. This means they have 15 or more headaches days a month, with at least eight of these headaches having migraine characteristics. Both episodic and chronic migraine attacks have a significant effect on a person’s quality of life, as they may miss out on social activities and work.

Until now, the first options migraine patients had to prevent attacks was to use either blood pressure drugs or anticonvulsants. But many people prescribed these drugs for migraine attacks stop using them because they either aren’t effective or because of the side-effects they cause – such as dizziness, tiredness and slow speech.

But atogepant has been specifically developed to prevent migraines.

Atogepant belongs to a new group of drugs named gepants. More specifically, it is a calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist.

CGRP is a small protein that circulates at elevated levels during a migraine. People who have chronic migraine consistently have higher levels of CGRP in their system. It’s believed that CGRP is produced by neurons that provide sensory information to the head and neck. When CGRP activates the CGRP receptor, it’s thought to contribute towards the development of the migraine headache.

But atogepant blocks this receptor, preventing it from becoming activated and stopping migraines from developing. It’s the first oral daily treatment that blocks the CGRP protein approved for both episodic and chronic migraine. Other treatments that prevent attacks by blocking the same protein have to be injected to work.

Another gepant recently approved by Nice is rimegepant, which is to be taken once every other day. However, it’s only suited to patients who suffer from episodic migraines – whereas atogepant can be used by people who have both chronic and episodic migraines.

Consistently effective

Three clinical trials have shown atogepant to be safe and effective for people with episodic or chronic migraines.

Atogepant would be taken once daily.
Yavdat/ Shutterstock

The Advance trial evaluated how safe and effective different doses of atogepant were compared with a placebo in preventing episodic migraine. Participants were aged 18 to 80 years of age. Over the 12-week period, all doses of atogepant were shown to reduce the average number of migraine days participants had per month.

Participants who received a 60mg dose of atogepant suffered four fewer migraine days on average. Those who received the placebo only had two-and-a-half fewer migraine days.

Another trial, the Progress trial, explored what effect different dosages of atogepant had in participants who suffered from chronic migraine. The researchers compared a 60mg daily dosage and a 30mg twice-daily dosage of the drug against a placebo.

They found that both dosages significantly decreased the average number of migraine days participants had per month over the 12-week trial period. The 60mg once-daily tablet was found to be well tolerated and effective, leading to nearly seven fewer migraine days per month.

A third trial, the 302-LTS trial, followed participants who suffered from episodic migraine for over a year, finding that atogepant was consistently effective for reducing migraine attacks. At the beginning of the study, atogepant led to an average of five fewer migraine days per month. By the end of the study, participants had an additional benefit of more than 30% fewer migraine days per month.

Atogenpant was consistently shown to be safe across all studies, including the one that lasted for a year. Any side-effects related to the drug were mild. The most common ones, affecting more than 5% of participants, were constipation, upper respiratory tract infections and nausea.

No serious cases of liver disease were reported, which used to be a problem with older generations of gepants. Atogepant’s safety has not been tested in pregnant or lactating women.

Based on these trial results, Nice has recommended atogepant be made available as a 60mg tablet that can be taken orally once daily – with or without food.

Atogepant is the only once-daily oral CGRP receptor antagonist available for preventing and treating both episodic and chronic migraine. This offers more choice to people with migraine when it comes to treatment – especially those who might prefer taking a daily tablet over getting a CGRP monoclonal antibody injection or Botox injections.

Another benefit of atogepant is that it can be stopped quickly should a person experience any serious side-effects or become pregnant.

Although it’s difficult to predict who may respond best to atogepant, it provides people who suffer from migraine with another treatment option – and may lead to a better quality of life. Läs mer…

A global plastics treaty is being negotiated in Ottawa this week – here’s the latest

Plastic pollution spans the globe, yet national policies are generally not effective enough, and have so far focused primarily on waste management rather than targeting the root cause. To make matters worse, the global trade in plastic waste tends to push waste to parts of the world with the least capacity to manage it.

On this basis, in March 2022, nearly 200 nations endorsed a historic resolution to develop a new global and legally binding agreement or treaty by the end of 2024.

The global plastics treaty focuses on ending plastic pollution, not eliminating the use of plastics. The mandate specifies that the agreement should include the entire lifecycle of plastics, which spans resource extraction and production of materials through the design, sale and use of products, to the management of waste. However, as the latest crucial negotiations begin in Ottawa, Canada — from April 23-29 — the shape of the treaty remains unclear.

Divisive positions

Between the negotiations in Canada and a final round in Busan, South Korea, in November, only 14 days of discussion time remain. The timeline is increasingly challenging. Negotiators must make rapid and significant progress this week towards a comprehensive treaty.

There is a broad division between countries, ranging from “low-ambition” countries which have hindered progress to a high-ambition coalition (led by Rwanda and Norway). This disparity means it is unclear where the treaty will land.

Will it be ambitious, with strict binding measures focusing on all stages of the plastics life cycle (including the “upstream” stages associated with resource extraction, manufacturing and processing)? Or will it be a weaker treaty, with voluntary and country-led measures that focus mainly on waste management and pollution prevention (the “downstream” stages)?

At present, unless consensus is reached, a small number of nations can veto or block the process. So this round of negotiations will need to overcome procedural delays and strive for a balanced approach that respects diverse national interests yet still produces a worthwhile treaty.

Voices in the room

There is ongoing dialogue regarding which voices are in attendance and influencing governments. Around 190 industry representatives were at a previous round of negotiations in Paris and 143 at the most recent round in Nairobi. The strong presence of industry and their ability to lobby governments continues to be a source of antagonism.

Some argue it is beneficial to have industry engaged in the process. Others say that the industry’s substantial resources diminishes the fair representation and influence of civil rights and non-governmental organisations advocating for those who bear the brunt of plastic pollution. If industry has such a large presence, there is considerable work to be done to amplify the voices of civil rights groups, NGOs and evidence-based contributions from academics.

Protesters at previous plastics treaty negotiations in Nairobi, Kenya, in November 2023.
UNEP / flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

Financing implementation

How the actions identified under the treaty will be paid for still needs to be determined, and could be a major stumbling block. Without financial support, there is a significant risk that even well-intentioned measures could falter.

A well-structured financial framework could ensure transparency and accountability through a mixture of private and public finance or novel mechanisms such as plastic pollution fees. Financial institutions are already on board, but strong legal mandates are required to generate a favourable investment environment. Overcoming this hurdle will be mission-critical in Ottawa.

Shifting away from waste management

There is a strong argument by the petrochemical and fossil fuel industry and some lower-ambition countries that the treaty should focus on waste management, improved collection, recycling and removal technologies. But plastic production is so great that solutions to prevent or manage plastic waste and pollution cannot keep up, and will only reduce global plastic pollution by 7% in the long term.

Negotiators must instead be bold and tackle plastic pollution at source by setting binding targets to reduce production. A significant reduction and simplification of the toxic chemicals used in the production of primary plastic polymers themselves is another priority.

Targets for reduction should also fall on the manufacture of products, sale, distribution, import and export. Upstream policies to reduce non-essential plastics, new plastics, and harmful additives will increase reusability and recyclability. These are fundamental steps towards ending plastic pollution by tackling the cause, not the symptoms.

Reuse as a potential early victory

“Reuse” could feature in the treaty. Not to be confused with recycling or refill, reuse emphasises the repeated use of items in their current form, curtailing the demand for new plastic production for single-use products or packaging. In certain applications such as packaging for food, drink, cosmetics and parcel packaging, it could eventually reduce plastic production by up to 75%.

Reuse would be relatively agreeable for most countries, especially when compared to divisive measures such as caps on production or outright bans on certain items or materials. These more contentious approaches can stall progress as they confront varied national interests and economic considerations. In contrast, agreeing to implement reuse systems in places such as restaurants or public buildings is an easy win in the context of very complicated political negotiations.

In Ottawa, negotiators will need to adopt a focused, cooperative approach, eliminating procedural delays to meet the pressing deadlines and critical requirements of the treaty, ensuring that time is used as efficiently as possible to achieve outcomes that do in fact help to end plastic pollution.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 30,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far. Läs mer…

The language of insolvency: why getting it wrong can harm struggling firms

Business failures are on the rise in Britain, with several high-profile names lost already this year. But since the 1980s, the UK has made it a priority to throw a lifeline to struggling companies. It appears, however, that these efforts to enhance the law are being hampered by sloppy language in the media, increasing the stigma around insolvency and potentially deterring businesses from seeking help.

Legal terms and concepts need to be accurate. The law of insolvency is no different.

Unfortunately, accuracy is often missing in insolvency coverage. MPs have used insolvency terms incorrectly, while media outlets, including the BBC, have a habit of referring to insolvency procedures in overly negative, and sometimes inaccurate, terms. In particular, the administration procedure, which is aimed at rescuing a company, is often discussed using words like “collapse”. This misleadingly associates it with the process of liquidation, which is aimed at removing a company from the market.

So what is the correct language to use when we’re discussing insolvency?

Corporate insolvency law

There are no fewer than six procedures which can be used by struggling companies.

They are found in the Insolvency Act 1986 (liquidation, administration, company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) and standalone moratoriums) and in the Companies Act 2006 (schemes of arrangement and restructuring plans).

Liquidation is used to gather in and sell the assets of the insolvent company for the benefit of its creditors – that is, the parties who are owed money by the insolvent firm. The liquidator then distributes the value of the assets among the creditors of the company in a ranked order, known as the “insolvency waterfall”. The liquidator replaces the board of directors and takes control of the day-to-day management of the company. At the end of the liquidation process, the company is dissolved and no longer exists. For example, Lloyds Pharmacy has recently gone through liquidation, and subsequently disappeared from high streets and Sainsbury’s stores.

Administration is a procedure that has been used by several high-profile names already this year, including Ted Baker most recently. The procedure was introduced in 1986 as a tool to rescue companies (that is, keep a firm afloat rather than liquidate it). Similar to the liquidation process, directors of the company are sidelined during administration and the administrator assumes day-to-day management.

There is also the Special Administration procedure, which is used for certain nationally important sectors, and which the Liberal Democrats have suggested for troubled Thames Water.

CVAs are another rescue procedure. It is a voluntary arrangement between the company and its creditors, supervised and approved by an insolvency practitioner (that is, someone who is licensed to act on behalf of an insolvent company). Crucially, a CVA is called a “debtor in possession” procedure because directors are left “in possession” (in charge) of the company – unlike in a liquidation or administration process. For example, after calling in administrators earlier this year, The Body Shop is now thought to be seeking a CVA.

Can a CVA help The Body Shop turn things around?
Yau Ming Low/Shutterstock

The standalone moratorium (introduced in 2020) can be used by companies together with, or independently from, any other procedure. Directors are given 20 business days to assess their rescue and recovery options. During the moratorium, the company will continue to operate under the control of the directors and the moratorium allows them the 20 days’ breathing space from creditors.

The scheme of arrangement, regulated by the Companies Act 2006, is a procedure available to companies that are not yet insolvent. It is used as a debt restructuring tool or to alter the company’s financial obligations. Essentially, it involves a deal between a company and its creditors and shareholders. Think of it as something akin to an individual consolidating their credit cards, or arranging a plan to repay arrears.

Lastly, closely modelled on the scheme of arrangement, the restructuring plan procedure introduced in 2020 is available to companies that have encountered, or may encounter, financial difficulties that are likely to affect their ability to carry on business.

The reality of corporate insolvency

Clearly, the legislative priority in the UK over the past 40 years has been to promote corporate rescue and renewal. This should, in principle, be particularly useful to British businesses at a time when the UK has seen a record number of business failures, with no fewer than 26,595 corporate insolvencies in 2023. That figure is 14% higher than in 2022 and 43% higher than pre-pandemic levels in 2019. It is predicted that this number will rise to 33,000 in 2024.

With an increasing number of companies in financial difficulty, we might have expected that corporate rescue cases would have risen too. But this is not the case. Rescue cases have dropped from 10% in 2019 to a rather woeful 6% in 2023. That means that in 2023, 94% of these companies (by our calculations 21,961 in total) were liquidated.

This shows that while the law is here to help, something is preventing struggling businesses from using it. While there are more factors at play, it is clear that inaccurate wording, including misleading language by politicians and the media, play a very important role. The stigma around experiencing financial difficulties and the negative way this is talked about may prevent businesses from looking for help at a time when it would provide the greatest chance of turning things around.

This is not just an academic point but it has real-world ramifications. The economic climate is challenging enough for companies. Lumping further issues on to indebted firms really isn’t helpful. Läs mer…

Beyoncé and Dolly Parton’s versions of Jolene represent two sides of southern femininity

On her new album, Cowboy Carter, Beyoncé puts a new spin on Dolly Parton’s classic song, Jolene. Though the album has achieved critical acclaim and commercial success from the start, it has also attracted some pushback.

It’s only natural that Beyoncé’s cover version would be compared to the 1973 original. Some people commenting online were vocal about not liking Beyoncé’s version, often citing its lack of vulnerability when compared to Parton’s version. But is vulnerability essential to the tale of Jolene?

There are upwards of 80 covers of Jolene, but Beyoncé’s is a departure from the rest. With significant lyrical changes, an added bridge and the voice of male country singer Willie Jones, the 2024 Jolene has a very different attitude. The Houston native’s Jolene is decidedly Black, and therein lies the crux of the different reactions towards the song.

Both versions of Jolene are about dealing with the threat of infidelity. It is important to examine the story Dolly Parton tells on Jolene because it, too, is rooted in her racial and gendered identity as much as Beyoncé’s Jolene is. But whiteness often goes unremarked upon.

The country genre is famed for storytelling and in this play between two white women, Parton is negotiating with Jolene based on conventions of the white southern womanhood and the gentility expected (or performed). The traditional southern belle femininity adheres to strict gender roles. She is a woman who is demure, chaste and charming. Think Scarlet O’Hara of Gone with the Wind or even Blanche Devereaux from The Golden Girls.

Parton is guileless as she charms Jolene with flattery about her beauty and ability to have any man she likes. Parton pleads, justifying the years she has invested in him and stresses that she will never love again.

The contrast between Parton and Jolene’s aesthetics are meant to convey a stark distinction in beauty and insecurity. Parton is blonde and blue eyed, an archetypal beauty that is associated with purity and innocence. While Jolene is fiery and wayward, with her auburn hair and her envious green eyes.

But it’s hard for me to think that Parton’s self-effacing isn’t a pointed performance of white, southern belle femininity. In her words, you have to read a little deeper to understand what is really going on.

Tension is at the core of Jolene. As linguistic anthropologist Marcyliena Morgan writes about southern language, Parton is confined in that genteel white femininity, unable to transgress its boundaries with even a hint of anger. She made this song at a time when the feminist movement was at its second-wave peak, but many white women in the south were politically conservative and saw the movement as a threat.

How is Beyoncé’s story the same but different?

Beyoncé’s song takes changes the story and takes it further. Towards the end of the song, Beyoncé and her partner turn a corner and offer hope against the disruption that Jolene represents. Beyoncé gets a boost from her husband’s help, this is communicated via an African American call and response motif where they express to Jolene their commitment to each other.

Beyoncé’s Jolene is introduced by Dolly Parton herself in a short interlude. Parton makes a clear association between her experience with Jolene and Beyoncé’s experience with “Becky with the good hair” (or “hussy” as Parton says).

In African American language, a “Becky” is a white woman. But the term has evolved to encompass racially ambiguous women with European or Asian features, lighter skin and loose curls or straight hair. The Becky in Jolene recalls the woman referenced in Sorry, a track on the Lemonade album, where Beyoncé identifies a woman her husband is cheating with.

Beyoncé employs a lot of what linguistics academic Alexis McGee terms African American women’s language (AAWL), or culturally familiar terms to Black southern women. “You’re a bird” (a shallow, temporary romantic interest), “you don’t want no heat with me”, “you don’t want this smoke”, and “I hate to have to act a fool”, among others. The entire song is rooted in AAWL.

Where Parton pleads, Beyoncé warns. Where Parton plies with charm, Beyoncé employs grit.

The concept of a femininity where “good” is predicated on charm, vulnerability and purity, and “bad” is aggressive, manipulative and sexually autonomous is a limited, binary one constructed by white patriarchy. It is a concept against which Black women can never measure up because we aren’t supposed to.

Instead, Beyoncé explores the multitudes of her Black identity and her Black southern femininity. She asserts that she is both a “queen” and a “Creole Banjee bitch from Louisianna”. Her roles as mother, partner, protector and head of the family unit are all noted in the song.

The original song speaks to a young woman compelled to save her husband from his own betrayal. Parton leaves her man blameless for his infatuation with the fiery-haired Jolene (even though he murmurs about her in his sleep).

Beyoncé on the other hand is performing the Black, southern femininity of a woman in her 40s who has has already experienced the betrayal of infidelity, and this time her husband stands with her to ward off the other woman’s uninvited advances (“I’ma stand by her, she gon’ stand by me”). The bridge of the song calls back to a marriage that has processed the pain of infidelity and is rooted in their renewed commitment (“‘cause you can’t dig up our planted seeds”)

The threat of infidelity is the same, but how the two women negotiate it is a reflection of their age, race and experiences of womanhood. Why would we expect the song to be the same when these two women are far from?

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here. Läs mer…

The murder of Giacomo Matteotti – reinvestigating Italy’s most infamous cold case

An elegantly dressed Italian gets off a train in central London on the evening of April 22 1924. He is on a secret mission to meet representatives of Britain’s ruling Labour party – including, he hopes, the recently elected prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald.

Giacomo Matteotti, co-founder and leader of the Italian Unitary Socialist Party, is one of the leading opponents of the fascist movement that has been tightening its grip on Italy since Benito Mussolini’s appointment as prime minister in October 1922, following the infamous March on Rome.

Giacomo Matteotti.
GpPhotoStudio/Alamy

For now, though, Italy remains a democracy. The 38-year-old Matteotti, a tireless defender of workers’ rights, still hopes Mussolini can be stopped. He has entered Britain without a passport as the Italian government refuses to grant him one. At home, he has been physically and verbally attacked by fascist mobs and government-sympathising newspapers. Even in London, he is shadowed by fascist agents – a fact revealed to him by his Labour party contacts.

For Matteotti, this new British government – the first to be led by Labour, although not as a majority – is a beacon of hope. It appears willing to listen to his concerns about what is happening in Italy following Mussolini’s controversial election victory earlier that month. The coming days in London will, Matteotti hopes, prove decisive in his fight against fascism.

Instead, less than two months later, he will be kidnapped and murdered while walking to the parliament building in Rome. It is a crime that shocks Italy and, a century later, still leaves many questions unanswered.

Four days in London

In their social backgrounds, MacDonald and Matteotti could not have been more different. Britain’s new prime minister was a working-class Scot who had made his way up via humble jobs and political activism. In contrast, Matteotti hailed from a wealthy family that owned 385 acres in the Polesine region of north-eastern Italy.

Yet in April 1924, as a declared enemy of the Italian state, Matteotti was practically a refugee. The fascists feared his exceptional eloquence, which he used to express his opposition to Italy’s government both in parliament and in domestic and foreign newspapers.

It is unknown whether the two men actually met during Matteotti’s four-day visit to London – Prime Minister MacDonald would hardly have wanted to advertise an unofficial meeting with an opposition MP from another country. But we know Matteotti connected with other prominent Labour figures.

This article is part of Conversation Insights
The Insights team generates long-form journalism derived from interdisciplinary research. The team is working with academics from different backgrounds who have been engaged in projects aimed at tackling societal and scientific challenges.

On April 24, he gave a speech to executive committees of the ruling Labour party and other workers’ organisations, in which he asked for “moral and material assistance” for Italian workers against fascist violence. His vivid account of the situation in Italy prompted publication of an English translation of his book A Year of Fascist Domination – which detailed a long list of violent crimes allegedly carried out by the Mussolini government.

But something else may have troubled Mussolini about Matteotti’s visit to London – part of a European tour that also included stops in Brussels and Paris. Italy’s prime minister had just signed an agreement granting the American Sinclair Oil corporation a monopoly on oil exploration and extraction in parts of Italy. It was later suggested the Labour government might have provided Matteotti with proof that this monopoly had been granted by Mussolini in exchange for a bribe of US$2 million (worth around US$40 million today).

Death of a socialist

Less than two months after his visit to London, on a warm Rome afternoon on June 10 1924, Matteotti left his house near Piazza del Popolo to make the short walk along the river Tiber to the capital’s parliament building. He planned to refine a speech he was due to give the next day at a session on the government’s proposed budget. He had reportedly been working on this speech day and night, studying data and checking numbers for many hours.

The site of Matteotti’s abduction next to the river Tiber in central Rome.
Archivio GBB/Alamy

But a car was waiting for him with five people on board – fascist members of a secret group formed a few months earlier at the Viminale, the palace of the interior minister. This secret group, known as Ceka after the Soviet political police created to repress dissent, had been following Matteotti for weeks. The squad’s leader, US-born Amerigo Dumini, reputedly boasted of having previously killed several socialist activists.

The gang moved quickly, grabbing Matteotti and dragging him into their car, a fancy Italian Lancia. Screaming, the opposition leader threw his parliamentary ID card to the ground where it would later be found by passers by. The car sped away along the unpaved, empty streets of Rome. Matteotti would never be seen alive again.

The Lancia used to abduct Giacomo Matteotti.
Archivio GBB/Alamy

The atmosphere in the Italian parliament the following afternoon was febrile. Socialist MPs, alerted by Matteotti’s wife, denounced the MP’s disappearance – but were not altogether surprised by it. Twelve days earlier, Matteotti had given a speech denouncing the recent general election which gave the fascists their first (and only) electoral victory. The vote was dogged by threats and acts of violence that prevented many antifascist candidates from standing, and many workers from voting.

As Matteotti was addressing parliament, Mussolini was reportedly overheard asking: “How come this man is still going around?” In an article in the fascist newspaper Popolo d’Italia, the prime minister described the speech as “monstrously provocative” and “deserving of something more tangible than epithet[s]”.

Yet two days after Matteotti’s disappearance, Mussolini’s tune had changed. He reassured MPs that “the police were informed of the prolonged disappearance of Hon. Matteotti” and that he himself “had ordered [them] to intensify the search”. When Matteotti’s wife visited him, Mussolini assured her that he wanted to send back her husband alive.

By then, however, events were spiralling out of Mussolini’s control. The concierge of a building next to Matteotti’s house had given police the registration number of a suspicious-looking car he had spotted the day before the murder. The police soon identified the car’s owner as Filippo Filippelli, director of the pro-fascist newspaper Corriere Italiano. That same evening, Dumini, who had a cover job at the newspaper, was taken into custody, with more arrests to follow over the following weeks.

An Italian newspaper cartoon published in the wake of Matteotti’s murder.
Granger Historical Picture Archive/Alamy

Within 48 hours of Matteotti’s disappearance, newspapers led by the Corriere della Sera were linking the crime with fascists close to the government, as Dumini’s close friendship with the head of Mussolini’s press office, Cesare Rossi, was well known in Rome. For a few days, it appeared that the resulting public outrage – much of it aimed at Mussolini himself – might even bring down Italy’s government, spelling the death knell for fascism.

Why was Matteotti murdered?

One hundred years on, Matteotti’s disappearance – and the subsequent discovery of his remains on the outskirts of Rome during the sleepy August holiday season – remains a controversial event in Italy’s collective memory. It is a topic discussed by many, yet avoided by the current government, which has been withholding funds for initiatives to mark the centenary of Matteotti’s murder.

His death can be seen as one of the most consequential political assassinations of the 20th century. By killing a leader of the opposition, Italy’s fascist regime brought political violence to a new level, making clear that it was ready to punish all who stood in its way, whatever their standing. Dictatorship loomed in Italy, and fascism became an entry in dictionaries worldwide, inspiring countless authoritarian regimes – Nazi Germany included.

Yet for the Italian right, Matteotti is a ghost. Throughout her political career, Italy’s current prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, has hardly ever spoken about the historical crimes of fascists in Italy, and not once about the murder of Matteotti. Perhaps this is not surprising given the fascist roots of Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, whose logo features a flame said to symbolise the fascist spirit burning at Mussolini’s tomb.

The historical debate about the murder has also never reached a unanimous conclusion about who gave the order to kill Matteotti and why. Some leading Italian historians, including Renzo De Felice, suggested that Mussolini was himself the victim of a political plot – reasoning that since the murder occurred after “Il Duce’s” victory in the April 1924 election, there had no longer been any need for him to eliminate an opponent and risk triggering the political crisis that indeed transpired.

Some Italian historians suggested that Mussolini was himself a victim of the Matteotti plot.
Lebrecht Music & Arts/Alamy

Now, as the centenary of Matteotti’s death approaches, scholars and archivists from Italy and the UK (including this article’s authors) are collaborating to shed new light on the Matteotti case – with the help of documents that have been locked away in the archives of the London School of Economics (LSE) the whole time, and which most Italian historians, De Felice included, never got the chance to study.

This trove of more than 4,000 pages contains transcripts of the original documents amassed by the murder investigation, led by antifascist judge Mauro del Giudice, that were not made public at the time. While these documents were examined by historian Mauro Canali in the 1990s – leading him to accuse Mussolini of being directly responsible for the murder – we still do not know their full contents, and believe a thorough reinvestigation is long overdue.

In so doing, we hope to definitively dispel the theories of some right-wing historians and establish, once and for all, that it was Mussolini who ordered Matteotti’s murder – and also why he gave that order.

The LSE documents

The story of how the documents came to be secreted away in the LSE library takes us back to London for another clandestine visit – this time by Gaetano Salvemini, an esteemed professor of modern history who fled Italy in November 1925.

Salvemini sent a letter of resignation to the University of Florence while in London where, like Matteotti, he was seeking support against the threat of fascism back home. Unlike Matteotti, he didn’t make the mistake of returning to Italy afterwards. He would go on to live in exile in the US as a professor at Harvard University, while becoming revered in his homeland as one of the most important Italian intellectuals of the 20th century.

Read more:
Donald Trump is no Mussolini, but liberal democracy could still be in danger

Salvemini had many friends in London. Intellectuals and politicians including John Maynard Keynes, George Macaulay Trevelyan, Thomas Okey and Ramsay MacDonald (no longer prime minister but still leader of the Labour party) had all publicly expressed their support when Salvemini was arrested in Italy by the fascist authorities a few months earlier.

“When I am in London, I am not in exile. I am at my home, in the homeland of my heart, free among the free,” wrote Salvemini to his friend, the art historian Mary Berenson.

In December 1926, while still in London, Salvemini received the secret package which he soon passed on to the LSE. Like Matteotti earlier, his movements were being reported back to Mussolini, and a letter from the Italian Embassy in London, dated January 12 1927, informed the Italian leader that:

Gaetano Salvemini had delivered a few days earlier to the librarian of the London School of Economics the only remaining complete copy of the Matteotti trial documents … It contains oral depositions of accused and witnesses in the investigation not reproduced in the public trial. An Italian authority who examined the documents said it proves that the Matteotti murder and concealment of the body were instigated by the fascist government … and that Mussolini himself is directly implicated.

Salvemini and others involved in the smuggling of these documents well knew that their quest for justice for Matteotti would be unfulfilled for the foreseeable future. But they were driven by the conviction that these documents could one day prove beyond doubt that Mussolini had orchestrated Matteotti’s assassination. After studying them closely, Salvemini himself wrote in The Fascist Dictatorship in Italy, a powerful 1928 account of why Italy became a dictatorship, that the documents he received contained irrefutable evidence that Mussolini was the instigator of Matteotti’s murder.

The reason they ended up at the LSE was probably due to Salvemini’s friendship with Alys Russell, an American-born British Quaker, relief organiser and the first wife of British philosopher Bertrand Russell. She regularly hosted Salvemini at her house in Chelsea along with LSE luminaries such as the political scientists Graham Wallas, Harold Laski and Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson. Salvemini may thus have considered the LSE a safe haven – and there the documents have remained ever since.

A voice from the dead

Following the arrest of Dumini on June 12 1924 and public outrage over Matteotti’s disappearance, Mussolini was on the defensive. He dismissed the head of the police and Cesare Rossi, probably his closest adviser, and told the Italian parliament:

Only an enemy of mine, who had been thinking diabolical thoughts for long nights, could have committed this crime, which today strikes us with horror and makes us cry out with indignation.

But sensing political blood, the opposition parties made a crucial mistake. In an attempt to pressure Italy’s king, Victor Emmanuel III, to remove Mussolini from office, they resolved to abandon parliament until those responsible for Matteotti’s murder were put on trial.

MPs discuss the ‘Aventino’ proposal to withdraw opposition in protest at Matteotti’s disappearance, May 1924.
Archivio GBB/Alamy

But this withdrawal of opposition – known as the secessione dell’Aventino after the hill where people gathered during political strikes in ancient Rome – did not have the hoped-for effect on the king, who feared the opposition’s republican leaders more than he feared fascist violence. Rather, the move allowed Mussolini to legislate unchallenged while the seats of the 123 MPs who had joined the rebellion were left vacant.

However, the voices of opposition were not entirely stilled. In July 1924, an article written by Matteotti days before his murder was published posthumously in English Life, a short-lived monthly magazine edited by Brendan Bracken, a close friend of Winston Churchill who would be his minister of information during the second world war.

Matteotti’s posthumous article.
Zuma Press/Alamy

Matteotti’s article, entitled “Machiavelli, Mussolini and Fascism”, was a response to an article published in the magazine’s June issue by Mussolini himself. The Italian prime minister’s translated essay about the Renaissance intellectual Niccolò Machiavelli had carried the provocative headline “The Folly of Democracy”.

Matteotti’s response ridiculed Mussolini’s advocacy of the use of force, while redeeming Machiavelli’s legacy. It quoted chapter 18 of The Prince, in which Machiavelli wrote:

There are two ways of deciding any question. The one by laws. The other by force. The first is peculiar to men, the second to beasts.

Matteotti’s article also gave details of the controversial Sinclair Oil deal, stating that he was aware of evidence of corruption within Italy’s government. In 1997, the historian Canali suggested that this had been what Matteotti was about to reveal in parliament, and hence was the real motive for his murder.

After describing Mussolini’s government as “an outrage against morality”, Matteotti ended the article with the far-sighted warning that fascist actions would “make Italy infamous throughout the world”.

The article was widely commented on in the British press, which had been following the story of Matteotti’s murder almost daily. Yet in Italy, the absence of the parliamentary opposition gave Mussolini breathing space from these posthumous accusations.

Matteotti’s coffin is carried to its burial place, followed by mourners.
Sueddeutsche Zeitung/Alamy

Finally, in mid-August 1924, when most Italians were on holiday to avoid the heat and political debate was at a minimum, Matteotti’s body was suddenly retrieved from a wood some 20 kilometres from Rome. His funeral was rushed through very quickly, with the coffin being transported overnight in an attempt to prevent public gatherings. Nonetheless, the burial in Matteotti’s small hometown of Fratta Polesine was attended by thousands of people, with many more having paid tribute during his body’s final journey.

The end of Italian democracy

By November 1924, the investigators of Matteotti’s death believed his murderers had been acting on orders from Mussolini. Sensing more political danger, Il Duce stepped up his authoritarian rule over the country. In a speech to parliament on January 3 1925, he took “political responsibility” for the murder while not admitting to ordering it. Mussolini’s speech ended with a rhetorical invitation to indict him – to a parliament now populated only by fascists. Instead, they applauded and cheered their leader.

The speech signalled the end of Italian democracy. In the 48 hours that followed, Mussolini imposed draconian limitations on the country’s free press, and granted local authorities the power to close all branches of opposition parties.

Benito Mussolini delivers the speech to parliament on January 3 1925 that marked the end of democracy in Italy for two decades.
Archivio GBB/Alamy

Amid Mussolini’s iron grip on power, there was no hope of realising the truth about Matteotti’s murder – in Italy at least. A trial began in 1925 but it was heavily manipulated: the antifascist judge who had led the investigation was substituted and the trial moved from Rome to Chieti, a small town and fascist stronghold, to minimise public attention.

Then in July 1925, Mussolini issued an amnesty for all political crimes. The decree was so blatantly aimed at saving Dumini and his associates that it was sarcastically referred to in antifascist circles as the “Dumini amnesty”. The trial became a farce, the perpetrators were all freed, and the truth about the murder was buried for decades.

The nature of Mussolini’s involvement was little discussed in the wake of his execution in April 1945 and the end of the second world war. Italy was now trying to overcome the civil war that had scarred it for so long, and antifascist parties looked for reconciliation rather than reviving outrage over Mussolini’s crimes. Two years later, Dumini and two accomplices were finally convicted to lengthy prison sentences for the murder – only to be later released under a new amnesty law.

However, just as Salvemini would have hoped when he handed the investigation documents to the LSE, Mussolini’s possible responsibility for the murder has been preserved in transcripts of the original inquest. Now, following a request by one of this article’s authors (Andrea), these documents are in the process of being digitised – and on Tuesday, April 23, the physical copies are being presented to the public for the first time.

The goal of our new research is to determine, once and for all, why Matteotti was murdered. Was it his democratic resistance to fascist misdeeds – particularly the violence and fraud that occurred during the 1924 general election? Was it the evidence of the Mussolini government’s corruption that he planned to reveal to the Italian parliament the day after his kidnap? Or was Matteotti killed for his international standing, exemplified by the connections to the Labour government that he fostered on that last, fateful visit to London?

And there is another motive for our research. By shedding new light on events leading up to Matteotti’s murder, we aim to highlight the plight of all political dissenters amid the resurgence of autocratic governments and corrosion of democratic values – including in Italy. By paying tribute to an early 20th-century martyr of democracy, we stress the need to understand and address the mechanisms that are still used today to silence opposition and strengthen authoritarian regimes around the world.

The murder of Giacomo Matteotti: an archive drop-in and seminar is being held at the LSE Library in central London on Tuesday, April 23.

For you: more from our Insights series:

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter. Läs mer…

The murder of Giacomo Matteotti – re-investigating Italy’s most infamous cold case

An elegantly dressed Italian gets off a train in central London on the evening of April 22 1924. He is on a secret mission to meet representatives of Britain’s ruling Labour party – including, he hopes, the recently elected prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald.

Giacomo Matteotti, co-founder and leader of the Italian Unitary Socialist Party, is one of the leading opponents of the fascist movement that has been tightening its grip on Italy since Benito Mussolini’s appointment as prime minister in October 1922, following the infamous March on Rome.

Giacomo Matteotti.
GpPhotoStudio/Alamy

For now, though, Italy remains a democracy. The 38-year-old Matteotti, a tireless defender of workers’ rights, still hopes Mussolini can be stopped. He has entered Britain without a passport as the Italian government refuses to grant him one. At home, he has been physically and verbally attacked by fascist mobs and government-sympathising newspapers. Even in London, he is shadowed by fascist agents – a fact revealed to him by his Labour party contacts.

For Matteotti, this new British government – the first to be led by Labour, although not as a majority – is a beacon of hope. It appears willing to listen to his concerns about what is happening in Italy following Mussolini’s controversial election victory earlier that month. The coming days in London will, Matteotti hopes, prove decisive in his fight against fascism.

Instead, less than two months later, he will be kidnapped and murdered while walking to the parliament building in Rome. It is a crime that shocks Italy and, a century later, still leaves many questions unanswered.

Four days in London

In their social backgrounds, MacDonald and Matteotti could not have been more different. Britain’s new prime minister was a working-class Scot who had made his way up via humble jobs and political activism. In contrast, Matteotti hailed from a wealthy family that owned 385 acres in the Polesine region of north-eastern Italy.

Yet in April 1924, as a declared enemy of the Italian state, Matteotti was practically a refugee. The fascists feared his exceptional eloquence, which he used to express his opposition to Italy’s government both in parliament and in domestic and foreign newspapers.

It is unknown whether the two men actually met during Matteotti’s four-day visit to London – Prime Minister MacDonald would hardly have wanted to advertise an unofficial meeting with an opposition MP from another country. But we know Matteotti connected with other prominent Labour figures.

This article is part of Conversation Insights
The Insights team generates long-form journalism derived from interdisciplinary research. The team is working with academics from different backgrounds who have been engaged in projects aimed at tackling societal and scientific challenges.

On April 24, he gave a speech to executive committees of the ruling Labour party and other workers’ organisations, in which he asked for “moral and material assistance” for Italian workers against fascist violence. His vivid account of the situation in Italy prompted publication of an English translation of his book A Year of Fascist Domination – which detailed a long list of violent crimes allegedly carried out by the Mussolini government.

But something else may have troubled Mussolini about Matteotti’s visit to London – part of a European tour that also included stops in Brussels and Paris. Italy’s prime minister had just signed an agreement granting the American Sinclair Oil corporation a monopoly on oil exploration and extraction in parts of Italy. It was later suggested the Labour government might have provided Matteotti with proof that this monopoly had been granted by Mussolini in exchange for a bribe of US$2 million (worth around US$40 million today).

Death of a socialist

Less than two months after his visit to London, on a warm Rome afternoon on June 10 1924, Matteotti left his house near Piazza del Popolo to make the short walk along the river Tiber to the capital’s parliament building. He planned to refine a speech he was due to give the next day at a session on the government’s proposed budget. He had reportedly been working on this speech day and night, studying data and checking numbers for many hours.

The site of Matteotti’s abduction next to the river Tiber in central Rome.
Archivio GBB/Alamy

But a car was waiting for him with five people on board – fascist members of a secret group formed a few months earlier at the Viminale, the palace of the interior minister. This secret group, known as Ceka after the Soviet political police created to repress dissent, had been following Matteotti for weeks. The squad’s leader, US-born Amerigo Dumini, reputedly boasted of having previously killed several socialist activists.

The gang moved quickly, grabbing Matteotti and dragging him into their car, a fancy Italian Lancia. Screaming, the opposition leader threw his parliamentary ID card to the ground where it would later be found by passers by. The car sped away along the unpaved, empty streets of Rome. Matteotti would never be seen alive again.

The Lancia used to abduct Giacomo Matteotti.
Archivio GBB/Alamy

The atmosphere in the Italian parliament the following afternoon was febrile. Socialist MPs, alerted by Matteotti’s wife, denounced the MP’s disappearance – but were not altogether surprised by it. Twelve days earlier, Matteotti had given a speech denouncing the recent general election which gave the fascists their first (and only) electoral victory. The vote was dogged by threats and acts of violence that prevented many antifascist candidates from standing, and many workers from voting.

As Matteotti was addressing parliament, Mussolini was reportedly overheard asking: “How come this man is still going around?” In an article in the fascist newspaper Popolo d’Italia, the prime minister described the speech as “monstrously provocative” and “deserving of something more tangible than epithet[s]”.

Yet two days after Matteotti’s disappearance, Mussolini’s tune had changed. He reassured MPs that “the police were informed of the prolonged disappearance of Hon. Matteotti” and that he himself “had ordered [them] to intensify the search”. When Matteotti’s wife visited him, Mussolini assured her that he wanted to send back her husband alive.

By then, however, events were spiralling out of Mussolini’s control. The concierge of a building next to Matteotti’s house had given police the registration number of a suspicious-looking car he had spotted the day before the murder. The police soon identified the car’s owner as Filippo Filippelli, director of the pro-fascist newspaper Corriere Italiano. That same evening, Dumini, who had a cover job at the newspaper, was taken into custody, with more arrests to follow over the following weeks.

An Italian newspaper cartoon published in the wake of Matteotti’s murder.
Granger Historical Picture Archive/Alamy

Within 48 hours of Matteotti’s disappearance, newspapers led by the Corriere della Sera were linking the crime with fascists close to the government, as Dumini’s close friendship with the head of Mussolini’s press office, Cesare Rossi, was well known in Rome. For a few days, it appeared that the resulting public outrage – much of it aimed at Mussolini himself – might even bring down Italy’s government, spelling the death knell for fascism.

Why was Matteotti murdered?

One hundred years on, Matteotti’s disappearance – and the subsequent discovery of his remains on the outskirts of Rome during the sleepy August holiday season – remains a controversial event in Italy’s collective memory. It is a topic discussed by many, yet avoided by the current government, which has been withholding funds for initiatives to mark the centenary of Matteotti’s murder.

His death can be seen as one of the most consequential political assassinations of the 20th century. By killing a leader of the opposition, Italy’s fascist regime brought political violence to a new level, making clear that it was ready to punish all who stood in its way, whatever their standing. Dictatorship loomed in Italy, and fascism became an entry in dictionaries worldwide, inspiring countless authoritarian regimes – Nazi Germany included.

Yet for the Italian right, Matteotti is a ghost. Throughout her political career, Italy’s current prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, has hardly ever spoken about the historical crimes of fascists in Italy, and not once about the murder of Matteotti. Perhaps this is not surprising given the fascist roots of Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, whose logo features a flame said to symbolise the fascist spirit burning at Mussolini’s tomb.

The historical debate about the murder has also never reached a unanimous conclusion about who gave the order to kill Matteotti and why. Some leading Italian historians, including Renzo De Felice, suggested that Mussolini was himself the victim of a political plot – reasoning that since the murder occurred after “Il Duce’s” victory in the April 1924 election, there had no longer been any need for him to eliminate an opponent and risk triggering the political crisis that indeed transpired.

Some Italian historians suggested that Mussolini was himself a victim of the Matteotti plot.
Lebrecht Music & Arts/Alamy

Now, as the centenary of Matteotti’s death approaches, scholars and archivists from Italy and the UK (including this article’s authors) are collaborating to shed new light on the Matteotti case – with the help of documents that have been locked away in the archives of the London School of Economics (LSE) the whole time, and which most Italian historians, De Felice included, never got the chance to study.

This trove of more than 4,000 pages contains transcripts of the original documents amassed by the murder investigation, led by antifascist judge Mauro del Giudice, that were not made public at the time. While these documents were examined by historian Mauro Canali in the 1990s – leading him to accuse Mussolini of being directly responsible for the murder – we still do not know their full contents, and believe a thorough re-investigation is long overdue.

In so doing, we hope to definitively dispel the theories of some right-wing historians and establish, once and for all, that it was Mussolini who ordered Matteotti’s murder – and also why he gave that order.

The LSE documents

The story of how the documents came to be secreted away in the LSE library takes us back to London for another clandestine visit – this time by Gaetano Salvemini, an esteemed professor of modern history who fled Italy in November 1925.

Salvemini sent a letter of resignation to the University of Florence while in London where, like Matteotti, he was seeking support against the threat of fascism back home. Unlike Matteotti, he didn’t make the mistake of returning to Italy afterwards. He would go on to live in exile in the US as a professor at Harvard University, while becoming revered in his homeland as one of the most important Italian intellectuals of the 20th century.

Read more:
Donald Trump is no Mussolini, but liberal democracy could still be in danger

Salvemini had many friends in London. Intellectuals and politicians including John Maynard Keynes, George Macaulay Trevelyan, Thomas Okey and Ramsay MacDonald (no longer prime minister but still leader of the Labour party) had all publicly expressed their support when Salvemini was arrested in Italy by the fascist authorities a few months earlier.

“When I am in London, I am not in exile. I am at my home, in the homeland of my heart, free among the free,” wrote Salvemini to his friend, the art historian Mary Berenson.

In December 1926, while still in London, Salvemini received the secret package which he soon passed on to the LSE. Like Matteotti earlier, his movements were being reported back to Mussolini, and a letter from the Italian Embassy in London, dated January 12 1927, informed the Italian leader that:

Gaetano Salvemini had delivered a few days earlier to the librarian of the London School of Economics the only remaining complete copy of the Matteotti trial documents … It contains oral depositions of accused and witnesses in the investigation not reproduced in the public trial. An Italian authority who examined the documents said it proves that the Matteotti murder and concealment of the body were instigated by the fascist government … and that Mussolini himself is directly implicated.

Salvemini and others involved in the smuggling of these documents well knew that their quest for justice for Matteotti would be unfulfilled for the foreseeable future. But they were driven by the conviction that these documents could one day prove beyond doubt that Mussolini had orchestrated Matteotti’s assassination. After studying them closely, Salvemini himself wrote in The Fascist Dictatorship in Italy, a powerful 1928 account of why Italy became a dictatorship, that the documents he received contained irrefutable evidence that Mussolini was the instigator of Matteotti’s murder.

The reason they ended up at the LSE was probably due to Salvemini’s friendship with Alys Russell, an American-born British Quaker, relief organiser and the first wife of British philosopher Bertrand Russell. She regularly hosted Salvemini at her house in Chelsea along with LSE luminaries such as the political scientists Graham Wallas, Harold Laski and Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson. Salvemini may thus have considered the LSE a safe haven – and there the documents have remained ever since.

A voice from the dead

Following the arrest of Dumini on June 12 1924 and public outrage over Matteotti’s disappearance, Mussolini was on the defensive. He dismissed the head of the police and Cesare Rossi, probably his closest adviser, and told the Italian parliament:

Only an enemy of mine, who had been thinking diabolical thoughts for long nights, could have committed this crime, which today strikes us with horror and makes us cry out with indignation.

But sensing political blood, the opposition parties made a crucial mistake. In an attempt to pressure Italy’s king, Victor Emmanuel III, to remove Mussolini from office, they resolved to abandon parliament until those responsible for Matteotti’s murder were put on trial.

MPs discuss the ‘Aventino’ proposal to withdraw opposition in protest at Matteotti’s disappearance, May 1924.
Archivio GBB/Alamy

But this withdrawal of opposition – known as the secessione dell’Aventino after the hill where people gathered during political strikes in ancient Rome – did not have the hoped-for effect on the king, who feared the opposition’s republican leaders more than he feared fascist violence. Rather, the move allowed Mussolini to legislate unchallenged while the seats of the 123 MPs who had joined the rebellion were left vacant.

However, the voices of opposition were not entirely stilled. In July 1924, an article written by Matteotti days before his murder was published posthumously in English Life, a short-lived monthly magazine edited by Brendan Bracken, a close friend of Winston Churchill who would be his minister of information during the second world war.

Matteotti’s posthumous article.
Zuma Press/Alamy

Matteotti’s article, entitled “Machiavelli, Mussolini and Fascism”, was a response to an article published in the magazine’s June issue by Mussolini himself. The Italian prime minister’s translated essay about the Renaissance intellectual Niccolò Machiavelli had carried the provocative headline “The Folly of Democracy”.

Matteotti’s response ridiculed Mussolini’s advocacy of the use of force, while redeeming Machiavelli’s legacy. It quoted chapter 18 of The Prince, in which Machiavelli wrote:

There are two ways of deciding any question. The one by laws. The other by force. The first is peculiar to men, the second to beasts.

Matteotti’s article also gave details of the controversial Sinclair Oil deal, stating that he was aware of evidence of corruption within Italy’s government. In 1997, the historian Canali suggested that this had been what Matteotti was about to reveal in parliament, and hence was the real motive for his murder.

After describing Mussolini’s government as “an outrage against morality”, Matteotti ended the article with the far-sighted warning that fascist actions would “make Italy infamous throughout the world”.

The article was widely commented on in the British press, which had been following the story of Matteotti’s murder almost daily. Yet in Italy, the absence of the parliamentary opposition gave Mussolini breathing space from these posthumous accusations.

Matteotti’s coffin is carried to its burial place, followed by mourners.
Sueddeutsche Zeitung/Alamy

Finally, in mid-August 1924, when most Italians were on holiday to avoid the heat and political debate was at a minimum, Matteotti’s body was suddenly retrieved from a wood some 20 kilometres from Rome. His funeral was rushed through very quickly, with the coffin being transported overnight in an attempt to prevent public gatherings. Nonetheless, the burial in Matteotti’s small hometown of Fratta Polesine was attended by thousands of people, with many more having paid tribute during his body’s final journey.

The end of Italian democracy

By November 1924, the investigators of Matteotti’s death believed his murderers had been acting on orders from Mussolini. Sensing more political danger, Il Duce stepped up his authoritarian rule over the country. In a speech to parliament on January 3 1925, he took “political responsibility” for the murder while not admitting to ordering it. Mussolini’s speech ended with a rhetorical invitation to indict him – to a parliament now populated only by fascists. Instead, they applauded and cheered their leader.

The speech signalled the end of Italian democracy. In the 48 hours that followed, Mussolini imposed draconian limitations on the country’s free press, and granted local authorities the power to close all branches of opposition parties.

Benito Mussolini delivers the speech to parliament on January 3 1925 that marked the end of democracy in Italy for two decades.
Archivio GBB/Alamy

Amid Mussolini’s iron grip on power, there was no hope of realising the truth about Matteotti’s murder – in Italy at least. A trial began in 1925 but it was heavily manipulated: the antifascist judge who had led the investigation was substituted and the trial moved from Rome to Chieti, a small town and fascist stronghold, to minimise public attention.

Then in July 1925, Mussolini issued an amnesty for all political crimes. The decree was so blatantly aimed at saving Dumini and his associates that it was sarcastically referred to in antifascist circles as the “Dumini amnesty”. The trial became a farce, the perpetrators were all freed, and the truth about the murder was buried for decades.

The nature of Mussolini’s involvement was little discussed in the wake of his execution in April 1945 and the end of the second world war. Italy was now trying to overcome the civil war that had scarred it for so long, and antifascist parties looked for reconciliation rather than reviving outrage over Mussolini’s crimes. Two years later, Dumini and two accomplices were finally convicted to lengthy prison sentences for the murder – only to be later released under a new amnesty law.

However, just as Salvemini would have hoped when he handed the investigation documents to the LSE, Mussolini’s possible responsibility for the murder has been preserved in transcripts of the original inquest. Now, following a request by one of this article’s authors (Andrea), these documents are in the process of being digitised – and on Tuesday, April 23, the physical copies are being presented to the public for the first time.

The goal of our new research is to determine, once and for all, why Matteotti was murdered. Was it his democratic resistance to fascist misdeeds – particularly the violence and fraud that occurred during the 1924 general election? Was it the evidence of the Mussolini government’s corruption that he planned to reveal to the Italian parliament the day after his kidnap? Or was Matteotti killed for his international standing, exemplified by the connections to the Labour government that he fostered on that last, fateful visit to London?

And there is another motive for our research. By shedding new light on events leading up to Matteotti’s murder, we aim to highlight the plight of all political dissenters amid the resurgence of autocratic governments and corrosion of democratic values – including in Italy. By paying tribute to an early 20th-century martyr of democracy, we stress the need to understand and address the mechanisms that are still used today to silence opposition and strengthen authoritarian regimes around the world.

The murder of Giacomo Matteotti: an archive drop-in and seminar is being held at the LSE Library in central London on Tuesday, April 23.

For you: more from our Insights series:

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter. Läs mer…

Ukraine war: US$60 billion in US military aid a major morale boost but no certain path to victory

It took months of delays and desperate pleas from Ukraine, but the US House of Representatives has finally passed a bill authorising US$60 billion (£50 billion) worth of military aid to Ukraine.

The bill is still subject to Senate approval and then needs to be signed into law by the US president, Joe Biden. But given the Senate’s previous approval of a similar measure and Biden’s vehemence of the need to support Ukraine, this should be a formality.

So, will US support save Ukraine from what might otherwise have been an all-but-certain defeat? The answer is not straightforward. What is certain is that it gives Ukraine a breathing space on the battlefield – and an opportunity to halt a slow but steady Russian offensive that has netted Moscow substantial territorial gains in recent months.

Apart from Senate and presidential approval, there are still some logistical difficulties to overcome. Most of the urgently needed military hardware, especially ammunition, is already stored in Poland. But it needs to be transported to the frontlines and incorporated into defence strategy and tactics by Ukrainian troops there.

But, given that they are now secure in the knowledge that supplies arrive soon, Kyiv will be less compelled to ration ammunition as it has been forced to do recently. Together with the morale boost for troops, this means that improvements in the situation on the front are likely – even before new US supplies will arrive.

Political will

How much more than a reprieve will this aid package really provide? This depends on several factors. The sustainability of military and other forms of aid is not simply a financial question. It is above all one of political will.

The months-long delay in the US Congress was primarily an issue of domestic political posturing in a presidential election year. After a series of mixed signals over recent months, Donald Trump backed Republican House speaker Mike Johnson in his decision to bring the Ukraine aid bill to a vote on Saturday. But more Republican members of the House opposed the bill than supported it.

Moreover, if Trump were to return to the White House after November’s election, his personal grudges against Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, are well known. This – as well as his past expressions of admiration for Vladimir Putin – make him, and the US, an uncertain long-term ally.

Earlier difficulties in the EU to pass its multi-annual Ukraine support package were caused by the pro-Russian leanings of just one among its 27 heads of state and government. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán now seems to have found a like-minded ally in Slovakia’s prime minister, Robert Fico, who has opposed efforts to provide more military aid to Ukraine, instead arguing that Kyiv should seek a negotiated settlement with Moscow.

European parliamentary elections in June are likely to return a larger proportion of pro-Russian members to the parliament who are opposed to open-ended support for Ukraine. While their influence on funding decisions is much more limited, they could certainly create significant problems in Ukraine’s EU accession negotiations.

Economic capacity

To add to that, the US and Europe’s defence industrial bases are nowhere near sufficiently geared up to match Russia’s vastly increased military output and its own strengthened defence sector. Russia’s rapid transition to a war economy has been additionally buoyed by Iranian, North Korean and Chinese support and weapons supplies.

There is some confidence that production capacity in the US and Europe, as well as in Ukraine, will significantly increase as of 2025. At the same time there is some doubt whether Russia will be able to sustain its current rate of military output, especially if the US and EU manage to dissuade China and Iran from further aiding Moscow.

But even in an optimistic scenario of sustained investments in the defence industrial base of the collective west and increasing Russian economic and logistical difficulties to sustain its defence sector, a gamechanging shift in the balance of power is unlikely in the near future.

Russia holds the initiative, for now

In addition, Russia, at the moment in any case, still has clear manpower advantages. It also enjoys air superiority in light of depleted Ukrainian air defence systems, and has the operational momentum on the battlefield. If anything, Russia will now double down on its current offensive pushes.

Battlefield advantage: Russian president, Vladimir Putin, with his defence minister, Sergei Shoigu.
EPA-EFE/Gavril Grigorov/Sputnik/Kremlin pool

It will want to press home these advantages before Ukraine’s defences are bolstered by the arrival of military aid, and potentially more US military advisers.

A final point worth reiterating is that Ukraine is not the only major security crisis that the west is facing. At the same time as the US House of Representatives passed its Ukraine support bill, it also voted in favour of military support for Israel and Taiwan, potentially authorising a combined total of some US$100 billion (£81 billion). In light of an existing US$34 trillion federal debt balance – which increases by US$1 trillion every 100 days – the long-term sustainability of such aid packages is in question, and not only during a potential second Trump presidency.

Taken together, all this probably means that predictions that Ukraine will win the war against Russia within a year on the back of this additional US support are at best overly optimistic and at worst dangerously delusional. A more realistic assessment would be that the resolve that the west seems to be rediscovering more widely in its support for Ukraine will give Kyiv an opportunity to improve its negotiating position when the two sides finally sit down to bring this war to an end.

But even this could turn out to be wishful thinking. Given the continuing rhetoric of victory in Moscow and Kyiv, another forever-war might just have become more sustainable – for now. Läs mer…

Ukraine war: $60 billion in US military aid a major morale boost but no certain path to victory

It took months of delays and desperate pleas from Ukraine, but the US House of Representatives has finally passed a bill authorising US$60 billion (£50 billion) worth of military aid to Ukraine.

The bill is still subject to Senate approval and then needs to be signed into law by the US president, Joe Biden. But given the Senate’s previous approval of a similar measure and Biden’s vehemence of the need to support Ukraine, this should be a formality.

So, will US support save Ukraine from what might otherwise have been an all-but-certain defeat? The answer is not straightforward. What is certain is that it gives Ukraine a breathing space on the battlefield – and an opportunity to halt a slow but steady Russian offensive that has netted Moscow substantial territorial gains in recent months.

Apart from Senate and presidential approval, there are still some logistical difficulties to overcome. Most of the urgently needed military hardware, especially ammunition, is already stored in Poland. But it needs to be transported to the frontlines and incorporated into defence strategy and tactics by Ukrainian troops there.

But, given that they are now secure in the knowledge that supplies arrive soon, Kyiv will be less compelled to ration ammunition as it has been forced to do recently. Together with the morale boost for troops, this means that improvements in the situation on the front are likely – even before new US supplies will arrive.

Political will

How much more than a reprieve will this aid package really provide? This depends on several factors. The sustainability of military and other forms of aid is not simply a financial question. It is above all one of political will.

The months-long delay in the US Congress was primarily an issue of domestic political posturing in a presidential election year. After a series of mixed signals over recent months, Donald Trump backed Republican House speaker Mike Johnson in his decision to bring the Ukraine aid bill to a vote on Saturday. But more Republican members of the House opposed the bill than supported it.

Moreover, if Trump were to return to the White House after November’s election, his personal grudges against Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, are well known. This – as well as his past expressions of admiration for Vladimir Putin – make him, and the US, an uncertain long-term ally.

Earlier difficulties in the EU to pass its multi-annual Ukraine support package were caused by the pro-Russian leanings of just one among its 27 heads of state and government. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán now seems to have found a like-minded ally in Slovakia’s prime minister, Robert Fico, who has opposed efforts to provide more military aid to Ukraine, instead arguing that Kyiv should seek a negotiated settlement with Moscow.

European parliamentary elections in June are likely to return a larger proportion of pro-Russian members to the parliament who are opposed to open-ended support for Ukraine. While their influence on funding decisions is much more limited, they could certainly create significant problems in Ukraine’s EU accession negotiations.

Economic capacity

To add to that, the US and Europe’s defence industrial bases are nowhere near sufficiently geared up to match Russia’s vastly increased military output and its own strengthened defence sector. Russia’s rapid transition to a war economy has been additionally buoyed by Iranian, North Korean and Chinese support and weapons supplies.

There is some confidence that production capacity in the US and Europe, as well as in Ukraine, will significantly increase as of 2025. At the same time there is some doubt whether Russia will be able to sustain its current rate of military output, especially if the US and EU manage to dissuade China and Iran from further aiding Moscow.

But even in an optimistic scenario of sustained investments in the defence industrial base of the collective west and increasing Russian economic and logistical difficulties to sustain its defence sector, a gamechanging shift in the balance of power is unlikely in the near future.

Russia holds the initiative, for now

In addition, Russia, at the moment in any case, still has clear manpower advantages. It also enjoys air superiority in light of depleted Ukrainian air defence systems, and has the operational momentum on the battlefield. If anything, Russia will now double down on its current offensive pushes.

Battlefield advantage: Russian president, Vladimir Putin, with his defence minister, Sergei Shoigu.
EPA-EFE/Gavril Grigorov/Sputnik/Kremlin pool

It will want to press home these advantages before Ukraine’s defences are bolstered by the arrival of military aid, and potentially more US military advisers.

A final point worth reiterating is that Ukraine is not the only major security crisis that the west is facing. At the same time as the US House of Representatives passed its Ukraine support bill, it also voted in favour of military support for Israel and Taiwan, potentially authorising a combined total of some US$100 billion (£81 billion). In light of an existing $34 trillion federal debt balance – which increases by US$1 trillion every 100 days – the long-term sustainability of such aid packages is in question, and not only during a potential second Trump presidency.

Taken together, all this probably means that predictions that Ukraine will win the war against Russia within a year on the back of this additional US support are at best overly optimistic and at worst dangerously delusional. A more realistic assessment would be that the resolve that the west seems to be rediscovering more widely in its support for Ukraine will give Kyiv an opportunity to improve its negotiating position when the two sides finally sit down to bring this war to an end.

But even this could turn out to be wishful thinking. Given the continuing rhetoric of victory in Moscow and Kyiv, another forever-war might just have become more sustainable – for now. Läs mer…